Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

We have come to a strange pass when Liberal Democrats hold the United States up as a model of democracy. Another point is that the United States has not changed its voting system. It has used the one it inherited from this place: the plain, straightforward, vanilla, winner-takes-all system. Perhaps that is why US democracy works so well. In fact, I do not know any academic authority that would hold up the US as a model of running referendums, and I will come back to that in a moment. Perhaps the most useful thing I can do for Members at this juncture is simply to run through briefly what the Electoral Commission decided in 2002-03. I obtained the papers from a freedom of information request from the commission. On turnout, the commission argued that"““the effects of a combined poll may distort the result, albeit whilst increasing turnout””" and that"““the turnout of combined polls can have varied results. As such, the benefits do not appear to be so great or definitive as to automatically over-ride any potential problems a combined poll might bring.””" On the question of constitutional confusion, the commission argued:"““Holding a referendum implies that there is a constitutional””" or"““important issue being put to the country””" and therefore that it is"““preferable that the issue being debated is subject to as little 'interference' or influence from other ongoing activities, such as a general, regional and/or local elections. For example, shifting attitudes towards political parties, their relative un/popularity of the day, may have a greater impact on the referendum result than feelings or knowledge about the issue at hand””." The commission concluded:"““It is essential that any referendum campaign and result is seen to be elevated above party politics. This is difficult to achieve in a combined poll””." By any stretch of the imagination, the referendum will decide a constitutional issue, and one which divides all parties—there are people even in the Conservative party who are mad enough to consider the alternative vote. [Hon. Members: ““Name them!””] Allow me to correct myself: some Conservatives are mad enough to consider supporting the alternative vote because they want something else. The idea that an AV referendum should be decided amid the furore of the party political battle—in Scotland, for example, public spending cuts will have to be hotly debated—seems extremely unsatisfactory to me, as the 2002-03 proposal did to the Electoral Commission.